Consecration of the Firstborn

[abijah]

Exodus 13:12-15
12 That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord’s.

13 And every firstling of an @#$ thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

14 ¶ And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

This scripture refers to the ceremony of consecration of the firstborn. The Israelites understood the firstborn of any living thing as specially belonging to Jehovah. All the firstborn of the beasts were sacrificed, in remembrance of the Passover and in looking forward to the atoning sacrifice of Jehovah himself. In verse fifteen God makes an interesting distinction between the firstborn of the Egyptians (who were slain along with the firstborn beasts) and the children of Israel, who were spared. Nonetheless, God commanded them to redeem the firstborn male, which was necessary before he could inherit his father's name and house.


Scripturally the word firstborn denotes the birthright son within a given family unit. In the scriptures I feel I've noticed a rather striking pattern, all centering on this office of being the firstborn.

Having the birthright, a firstborn receives exclusive blessings and priveleges, even those associated with the father he inherits them from. He is also given however a responsibility, to share and extend those blessings to the younger siblings, that they might be partakers of the same. The firstborn and his associated mission is the means by which all the children might share in the blessings of their father, and of himself. The father can only make one child his heir, but the heir may share that inheritance with his fellows.


Israel - Firstborn among the Nations

Exodus 4:22
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn

The Lord views the families/nations of this earth as one larger family unit, his children. Among these children however, he has called Israel his firstborn. Consistent with the pattern, Israel received exclusive blessings. They were blessed with prophecy, miracles and visions. Most of all however, they were blessed with a knowledge of the Lord. This is symbolically represented in his attempting to show himself to them on Mount Sinai. Among the nations of the earth, Israel were and have ever been specially blessed with his presence and privy to his truth. This is why Jesus came to the Jews, because they were his peculiar people.

So Israel was specially blessed, what about their responsibilities as the firstborn? To share what they have received on account of their inheritance. From the beginning the Lord's purpose in naming Israel as his firstborn was that all nations of the earth might be blessed. Israel was intended to be the vehicle by which all nations might likewise share in those special, exclusive blessings.


Ephraim - Firstborn in Israel

Jeremiah 31
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

If it weren't for Joseph of Egypt, the house of Israel wouldn't have lasted even a few generations. His is the archetype of that firstborn son who is specially raised up, "redeemed", and then proceeds to be the means of saving his father's house.

So if Ephraim is the firstborn in Israel, what are his priveleges? The restoration of the Gospel of Christ, through the hands of Joseph Smith Jr. What are his responsibilities? To share it! which we can witness easily today as missionaries cover the earth spreading the good news of the Restoration. The son receives this special redemption at the hands of his father, then proceeds to make it available to all the younger siblings and their houses.


Jehovah - Firstborn of the Father

We understand that all things bear record of Christ, and I think these have a pretty obvious application. Christ is the Firstborn of the Father's children. Like all other types of the firstborn, there is an attached blessing and responsibility to this office. The responsibility is fairly obvious; Jesus's mission was to come and offer salvation to all who would receive Him. He came to perform the Atonement, that men might have exaltation and eternal life.

This comes to my main point - the firstborn cannot share what he does not have, or give what hasn't first been given him. For Jesus to be the anointed one, to act as Saviour of mankind, he must have first been pre-saved, specially "redeemed" of his parents. I submit Jesus is a natural heir of salvation, or in other words, that him occupying the office of the firstborn, he is exclusively given the unconditional privelege of eternal life on account of birth. If it weren't so, he could never be called the messenger of the covenant, nor could he act as Saviour. One cannot lift another higher than to his own level. For Christ to save, he must have already been saved, even with the peculiar salvation of the firstborn, as typical in these and other scriptural examples.

Thoughts, ideas...?

[brlenox]

This comes to my main point - the firstborn cannot share what he does not have, or give what hasn't first been given him. For Jesus to be the anointed one, to act as Saviour of mankind, he must have first been pre-saved, specially "redeemed" of his parents. I submit Jesus is a natural heir of salvation, or in other words, that him occupying the office of the firstborn, he is exclusively given the unconditional privelege of eternal life on account of birth. If it weren't so, he could never be called the messenger of the covenant, nor could he act as Saviour. One cannot lift another higher than to his own level. For Christ to save, he must have already been saved, even with the peculiar salvation of the firstborn, as typical in these and other scriptural examples.

Thoughts, ideas...?

Essentially connotations of being saved speak to a prior condition of not being saved or to conditions of being saved from the Law which condemned all men. Christ was never subject to that law having never sinned and thus he was in no risk of destruction. Had he ever of been subject to that law then he could never have performed the atonement because one cannot pay the price of a law to which one is subject.

However, there is a principle similar in nature which is effective in this instance. Please observe:

The question I wish to ask is simply this; and I put it to all the Elders of Israel, and to all the men and women of intelligence in Israel which pertains to the Kingdom of God on Earth; and if the whole world were before me I would ask them the same question. Can any man, or set of men officiate in dispensing the laws, and administering the ordinances of the Kingdom of God, or of the kingdoms and governments of the world legally, without first obeying those laws, and submitting to those ordinances themselves. Do you understand me? If a foreigner wishes to become a citizen of the United States he must first become subject to this government; must you not first acknowledge and obey the laws of this government? Certainly you must.

Then, to apply this to the Kingdom of God on Earth, and ask yourselves if any man has the power, the influence[,] the right, the authority, to go forth and preach this gospel, and baptise for the remission of sins unless he himself has, in the first place, been baptised, ordained and legally called to that office? What would the Elders of Israel and every other sensible man say to this? They would all decide at once with me, that no man can lawfully officiate in any office in the Kingdom of God, [p.92]or in the governments of men, he has not been called to, and the authority of which has not been bestowed upon him. I am not going to talk a thousand things to you, but I wish to tell you a few, and desire you to understand them, and connect them together. (Young, Brigham A Sermon Delivered on 8 October 1854 The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, 1852-1854 [Salt Lake City: Collier's Publishing Co., 1987], 343-68)

Elder Young expands on this principle in the following:

I do not doubt the power of Christ; but did he prove that in his resurrection? No. But it is proved that an angel came and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulcher, and did resurrect the body of the Son of God.

What angel was this? It is not for me to say. I do not know him. If I ever did know him it is so long since I have entirely forgotten who it was. That Jesus had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up agin I do not dispute. Neither do I dispute, but what an angel came, that was sent by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to roll away the strone from the sepulcher, and resurrect the Son of God. Suffice it to say that he was some character who had himself been resurrected. Is there any further proof with regard to this sacred order of the Kingdom of God on the Earth?

O yes, you can find it in all the scriptures. For instance when the Savior appeared to Paul of Tarsus, on the road, in answer to the question, “Lord what will thou have me do,” he was told to go into the City of Damascus, and it should be told him there what to do. In the mean[time] one Ananias was sent to him, who baptized and ordained him. Jesus would not do this, because he had servants on earth whose special duty it was to administer these ordinances.

Again, the angel that appeared to Cornelius would not operated in the ordinances of the Gospel, but told him to send men to Joppa, to the house of one Simon the Tanner, and call for one Peter, etc., whose duty it was to do it, he being called and ordained to that power. Many more instances of this kind might be quoted but the above will suffice to illustrate the principle. (“I Propose to Speak Upon a Subject that does not Immediately Concern Yours or My Welfare” A Sermon Delivered on 8 October 1854 The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, 1852-1854 [Salt Lake City: Collier's Publishing Co., 1987], 343-68))

Wilford Woodruff takes this principle and applies it to the resurrection in this fashion:

But what is the time of our suffering in this life in comparison with Eternity After we have spent millions of Ages in Eternity & we look back upon our time here & it will only look like the twinkling of an eye in comparison. And so it will be in the waiting for the resurrection of our bodies. It will be for A moment as it were before we shall stand in our immortal bodies. But no person can have power to raise the dead except he holds the Keys of the Resurrection & no man can hold the keys of the resurrection or be ordained unto that power untill he has died & been raised from the dead himself. No more than A man has power to Baptize A man legally & lay hands upon him for the Holy Ghost & ordain him to the office of an Elder who has not been baptized or ordained himself.

Michael the Ark Angel (Adam) Holds the Keys of the resurrection And After A man is raised from the dead has an immortal body & recieves An ordination to hold the keys of the resurrection from under the Hands of Michael or those Having authority He then has power to raise the dead & not before.

Jesus was the first fruits of the Resurrection. "He had power to lay down his life & power to take it again" When He had lain in the grave three days An Angel, some person who was Appointed to this work appeared rolled back the stone & Called Jesus forth.

We have power here through the Priesthood to lay hands upon the sick & they recover, to east out devils open the eyes of the blind & unstop the ears of the deaf according to the faith of the children of men. It is just as easy to raise the dead for one who is ordained unto this power as it is for us to administer in the ordinances of the House of the Lord here. Some times we lay hands upon the sick & they are healed instantly. Other times with all the faith & medicine they are a long time getting well, & others die.. Wilford Woodruff's Journal23 Feb, 1848, Winter Quarters.: 1833-1898 Typescript, Volumes 1-9, Edited by Scott G. Kenney, Signature Books 1993, 3:323-324.

The essence is that Christ could not resurrect himself as first one who had been resurrected and then could hold the keys of resurrection would have to first bring him forth and then give him the keys of resurrection for all thereafter.

As to firstborn inheritance. All of the male offspring or women if there were no males were given a portion of the inheritance and the heir was to be given a double portion. The double portion was because the heir was to care for the children, fatherless, sick and afflicted of the Fathers family. You are correct that Ephraim is the heir of Jacob

This is typed after the reference to Joseph of Egypt in Gen 48:22 whereas Israel was giving his final birthright blessings to each of his sons and the reference to the double portion which he gave to Joseph:

Genesis 48:22
22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.